In a profession built on precision, authentication, and the evidentiary integrity of the record, a quiet but consequential shift is unfolding inside American courtrooms. Attorneys—especially those practicing in high-stakes civil litigation—are increasingly discovering that the “cheaper, modern alternative” of digital reporting comes with a hidden cost: there may be no qualified stenographer willing to salvage the record when things go wrong.
And things are going wrong.
Recently, a veteran Florida court reporter recounted an episode that should give every litigator pause. “I had an interesting thing happen recently,” she explained. “I was assigned a trial with a long-time client who does strictly insurance defense. Then a couple days later it was canceled. I texted my client, who is also a good friend. She says the plaintiff wants their own reporter—okay, that’s Florida’s rules. No problem.”
But what followed was something else entirely.
“Next thing I hear, there was a multimillion-dollar verdict against her. Then a couple days later she called me back and asked if I would transcribe from the digital. Whoa.”
Her answer was unequivocal. Years earlier, as a favor, she had attempted a similar task—transcribing a proceeding captured on rudimentary audio equipment.
“It was a disaster. NEVER AGAIN.”
She declined. Her longtime client understood. The agency later found someone willing to attempt the transcription—“God bless them,” she added—but then came the real revelation:
No one had been told that a digital recorder, not a certified stenographer, was covering the trial.
The plaintiff’s side had executed a classic bait-and-switch, and the defense attorney walked into a multimillion-dollar verdict without a trustworthy record of what transpired.
Attorneys who have ever reviewed a digital transcript know the outcome. As the reporter put it:
“If anyone has seen a digital transcript, you know. They are the worst transcripts imaginable. Stuff left out. Wrong speakers. Wrong words. Stuff that makes no sense. Think the appellate courts are happy?”
The New Request: “Can You Just Transcribe the Audio?”
Other stenographers are reporting an uptick in troubling inquiries.
One recently shared:
“I received an email asking if I was interested in doing digital, but I’m a stenographer—that’s kind of disturbing. I’m nervous we’re going to get knocked out.”
Another added:
“Some lawyers think digital is the way to go. Maybe it is if everything settles. But the god-awful transcripts…”
And here is the hard truth attorneys must hear:
Professional stenographers will not—and ethically cannot—clean up or certify a transcript from digital audio.
Doing so would compromise:
- Accuracy (audio is frequently incomplete or unintelligible)
- Authenticity (stenographers cannot certify a record they did not personally take)
- Ethical obligations under state reporting statutes
- Appellate integrity, where missing or wrong language is grounds for challenge
Stenographers are guardians of the record, not technicians for broken audio.
Technology Is Changing—but Not Always for the Better
Digital advocates often frame this shift as inevitable. And even within the stenographic community, the technological conversation is evolving.
One respected voice wrote:
“You all realize that the speech-to-text world IS changing, right? It’s not like it’s going to change. It already has… I am 💯 #steno, but I haven’t kept my fingers in my ears. Technology can do our job. It can and does. Please live in the reality of what is happening.”
Another veteran reporter, reflecting on 50+ years in the profession, cautioned:
“As the technology advances, I would encourage my colleagues to embrace it. Who better to harness and manage a viable new reporting technology than reporters? AI is here to stay.”
These statements are not endorsements of replacing stenographers. They are acknowledgments that technology will play an increasing role—but in partnership with, not instead of, trained professionals.
Even those embracing AI also concede a foundational truth:
Digital audio—without a human stenographer managing the record—is not a viable courtroom reporting method.
Not for trials.
Not for appeals.
Not for verdicts measured in millions.
The Attorney’s Dilemma: When “Cheap” Becomes Very Expensive
Attorneys who opt for digital reporting often do so for three reasons:
- It looks modern
- It looks easy
- It looks inexpensive
But like most things in litigation, the apparent shortcut leads to a longer, more expensive route.
The hidden risks include:
- inaudible testimony
- overlapping speakers
- untranslated accents
- failure to distinguish witnesses
- missing voir dire
- omitted sidebars
- misattributed objections
- entire segments lost to equipment failure
And when the transcript is needed for post-trial motions or appeal?
You will be told to “find a stenographer who can fix it”—and you will quickly learn that stenographers will not touch it.
You cannot retroactively hire accuracy.
You cannot reconstruct a destroyed record.
You cannot appeal without a clean transcript.
What looks cheap on the front end becomes catastrophic on the back end.
The Warning to Attorneys: Digital Has No Safety Net
Stenographers are not refusing out of pride. They are refusing because:
- They cannot ethically certify audio created by someone else.
- They cannot guarantee accuracy for a record they did not control.
- They cannot protect you on appeal if the audio is flawed.
Once you choose digital, you lose the protections that trained stenographers bring:
- live error correction
- real-time identification of speakers
- instant clarification of mumbling or low voices
- management of crosstalk
- capturing nonverbal gestures or exhibits
- ensuring a full, fair, and accurate record
No amount of post-processing, AI, or cleanup can replicate that.
A Final Thought for the Legal Community
The reporting profession is evolving, and technology will remain part of that evolution. But attorneys must recognize the difference between augmenting stenographic reporting and replacing it with something fundamentally less reliable.
As one reporter said plainly:
“Maybe digital looks good. Maybe it’s cheap. But the problem is getting a decent transcript.”
The legal system cannot function on questionable transcripts, missing testimony, or unverifiable records. Attorneys who accept digital reporting are accepting the risk that the only accurate account of what happened in the courtroom simply may not exist.
And when the stakes are measured in million-dollar verdicts, client trust, and appellate review, that is not a risk worth taking.
You cannot fix the record after the fact.
You can only protect it from the start.
Hire a stenographer.
StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.
Disclaimer
“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”
The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.
- The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.
***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):
STENOIMPERIUM 
How does a witness read and sign a non-steno deposition?Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike